The General and Kargil

Re: # 308

Okhla,

Ur name sounds like a locality in Delhi. OK, lets start.

>>>** Indian Ministers and Prime Minister are strong spined people who do not take instructions from Sonia Gandhi. <<<<

Starting from Nehru till Manmohan, we are blessed with scholar PMs except for Indira Gandhi, Charan Singh & Deve Gowda. Do u think that Manmohan is equal to Panneerselvam or Shaukat Aziz? A BIG no.

For Pakistanis, it`s all show like Musharrafia.....like chest thunping, commando-type false bravado?????? Our PMs elicit respect.....Urs? Sneer, perhaps!

>>>** Indian Army is a professional body which despite numerical superiority cannot give a reply to insulting attacks by Bangladesh Army. Nor can it win a war against Pakistan without a horribly adverse casualty ratio. <<<<

It`s a child`s guess as to what constitues win and loss? To quote cricket - even one run or 100 runs margin constitues a win. Ditto loss. As for Bangladesh army insulting Indian Army, I know u are mistaking woods for trees. The dead Border guard is being wrongly portayed as Indian soldier. If the insult abt the dead Border Guard is abt being carried by a ``Pole``; it`s bcoz there are no coffins availanble, it`s a misfortune that the visuals are more powerful than the facts.

Though I dont have ready statistics on more losses of Indian soldiers, I am clear in mind that Pakistan army was defeated decisively. THAT MATTERS.

>>>** Coruption by relatives of politicians is rampant in both countries (Sons of Natwar Lal Singh and Naraseema Rao being prime examples). <<<

Sons and these two men faced trails BUT tell me if the relatives of Musharraf are facing any trails?? A BIG No.

>>>** Would you marry your son or daughter to a computer engineer(Dalit) whose great grandfather was a scavenger? How many Brahmins would ?? Answer honestly, for a change. <<<<

I am an unmarried myself & live in UK. I dont mind marrying a black, white, native Indian of Americas, aborigines of Australia, Chinese or a hybrid Pakistani or of any race or caste of India. What abt you?

>>>In a lot of respects, both of our countries are equally blessed, including the calibre of our politicians & bureaucracy. However, you will agree that in all fields where India does not have numerical superiority, Pakistan has completed outcompeted and outclassed India (e.g. Cricket, Hockey, Squash). <<<

What abt Tennis? Mathematical Olympiads? India figure under top 15 ranks consistently. Had ur country ever participated in such brainy competitions?

As for Cricket:

Tests

India 4th, Pakistan 3rd

ODIs

India 5th, Pakistan 4th

>>>So think, carefully think,before you start spewing out venom. <<<

I say the same thing to you.

So think, carefully think, before you start spewing out venom.

Re: # 307


Respected VRV,

Since you have admitted that you cannot deny the points raised, I think you can now come down from the high pedestal on which you have placed yourself and your blessed country.

Also please refer to your post.

** Indian Ministers and Prime Minister are strong spined people who do not take instructions from Sonia Gandhi.

** Indian Army is a professional body which despite numerical superiority cannot give a reply to insulting attacks by Bangladesh Army. Nor can it win a war against Pakistan without a horribly adverse casualty ratio.

** Coruption by relatives of politicians is rampant in both countries (Sons of Natwar Lal Singh and Naraseema Rao being prime examples).

** Would you marry your son or daughter to a computer engineer(Dalit) whose great grandfather was a scavenger? How many Brahmins would ?? Answer honestly, for a change.

Remember VRV,

In a lot of respects, both of our countries are equally blessed, including the calibre of our politicians & bureaucracy. However, you will agree that in all fields where India does not have numerical superiority, Pakistan has completed outcompeted and outclassed India (e.g. Cricket, Hockey, Squash).

So think, carefully think,before you start spewing out venom.

Okhla,

We cant deny the points u raised abt India, BUT we have hope of overcoming the ills sooner or later. What abt you????

** Pak politicians are spineless. They look for the approbation of the General in power for even to piss.

** Indian Army is a professional body with NO ambition to usurp power. For them it`s a job, not a stepping stone to save India :-)))))

** Coffingate is a pathetic BUT what abt Maglev trains in Karachi scam?? There was corruption of Mush`s relatives pocketing the contract. Was there any transperancy left in Pakistan?? There are many more of them but can anybody say it openely abt the rot in Pakistan, forget abt fighting the issues?

(http://www.satribune.com/archives/200505/P1_mas.htm)

** Wud u marry ur son/daughter to a sweeper or a scavenger? Ask urself abt Pakistan & abt intermarriages in Pakistan??

** George is in dock now. He`s answerable.

** >>>Hindu ULFA terrorists & Hindu Naxalite terrorists in Hyderabad or the Hindu Maoists in Bihar<<<

Better u dont write what u dont know! U just added Hindu to the nouns to make it presentable to ur Pak compatriots. Naxalites and Maosits (same guys) who are godless. If India is a Hindu country, which u accuse us of, then why the Hindu this and Hindu that group is fighting us? Are u braindead too???

P.S: The truth applies to us all. Though we are alive and kicking we contain millions of bacteria in our mouths, noses, ears, eyes, intestines and on our skins. Still we live and and be pink. It`s the power of ourselves and the levels of immunity that make us strong. India as a country is not damaged beyond redemption! India survided the onsalughts of invaders for several times in her existence but she survived.

Think abt ur country now.

Respected BJ,

With reference to your # 302.

** Because the Indian Politicians are epitomes of truth & Honesty but are unfortunately routinely trapped in different scams (even asking money for questions in Assembly).

** Because the Brave Indian Army is not scared of Bangladesh/ Pakistan Armies.

** Because the honest & truthful Indian bureaucracy is not corrupt to the core and does not lose opportunity to make money even in purchase of Coffins for soldiers.

** Because in India, the enlightened popuilation does not believe in the caste system and Brahmins would gladly marry their children to Dalits.

** Because in India the truthful and honest Defence Minister Fernandes George can keep his Rakhail in his house to liaise with arms dealers and accept money on his behalf.

** Because India is a land of peace and harmony. The Hindu ULFA terrorists in the Eastern mountains or the Hindu Naxalite terrorists in Hyderabad or the Hindu Maoists in Bihar are actually Muslims in disguise all trained, armed and supported by the evil Pakistan.

** Because the great Indian middle class is passing on the right values of tolerance, intermarriage and peaceful coexistence to it`s young ones who are also as truthful as their parents.

INDIA IS ONE BIG FAT PIECE OF TRUTH.

Manto, you are a liar. The only audience you got - and will ever have - are fakers like Hamidm2 - who simply enjoy your rantings!

You are a minority yourself - and trying too hard to emphasize your ``Pakistaniness``!

You ain`t got it! They will never accept you as an equal - nor will they accept your children as equal.

Your country was created on a swamp of hatred and blood of innocents and no amount of couching is going to change that. Equality is not what swamps of hatred and blood of innocents are about!

You are a two bit lawyer who is a useless and ineffective appendage of a useless legal machine which licks khaki boots - you are a worthless small weak minority member in a country full of roaming wolves!

It is not a question of if you will be devoured.

Only of when!

The track record is impeccable! And the Pakistani poison is incurable!

Dear Harimau,

You may want to read the complete Orwell article before you get all jerky about the conclusions. I happen to agree with article untill that last line where he speaks of clean smells... clearly the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi had not become readily available till then. Hence Orwell had the right idea... but did not have the hindsight we have today. Same goes for Jinnah who held Gandhi in great esteem as an opponent ... clearly Jinnah had not read the collected Works.

Also Jinnah, Ambedkar and the man from your neck of the woods... E V Ramawamy Naicker... were all gentleman who towered above Gandhi in integrity and honesty...

This is what B R Ambedkar wrote:

``It is doubtful if there is a politician to whom theadjective `incorruptible` can be more fittingly applied. No one can buy him. The customary Hindu explanation fails to account for the ideological transformation of Mr.Jinnah.``

Do you think that was to the exclusion of Gandhi - I think so.


Now about Direct Action Day ... you really haven`t read the complete Wavell quote from 21st August 1946, have you? it is clear from a plain reading of the facts that ML was not involved (though I admit that Jinnah`s 17th August reprimand to his party seems to suggest that he felt very strongly that some Muslim League elements might have been involved) and you may revisit the discussion to see for yourself. If you had seen the whole thing, you would see that Lord Wavell rules out the fact that violence was caused because a holiday was declared. Infact given the events of that day, had the police - which was largely Hindu- been there, it would`ve been a greater carnage. As I said and argued (and which has not been adequately challenged) on the other board, it was the Bengal Congress that organised the murders and mayhem to bring down the Muslim League government which depended largely on its cross communal alliances.

Once again, cease and desist from personal attacks. Also I am putting this article on monitor manager, since I am travelling over the next few days, but will come back to respond in a few days. I suggest you do the same i.e. put the article on monitor.


BJKumar,

Abusing me will not change simple facts about Gandhi... i.e. that he was racist, casteist bigot...

Yasser, dear boy, here is George Orwell`s conclusion on Gandhi:

[http://www.readprint.com/work-1260/George-Orwell

One may feel, as I do, a sort of aesthetic distaste for Gandhi, one may reject the claims of sainthood made on his behalf (he never made any such claim himself, by the way), one may also reject sainthood as an ideal and therefore feel that Gandhi`s basic aims were anti-human and reactionary: but regarded simply as a politician, and compared with the other leading political figures of our time, how clean a smell he has managed to leave behind!]

Do you think that in ``other leading political figures of our time`` he included that leading legal luminary Mohammad Ali Jinnah?

#301

Because Manto is a liar!

Because Pakistani khakis are liars!

Because Pakistani mullahs are liars!

Because Pakistani politicians are liars!

Because Pakistani civilians are worse than liars - they are cowards!!!

And unless your ``young`` are aware of those facts - they will grow up to be liars, too!

And you would not want THAT, would you?

The answer is no! Any other answer is...

A BIG FAT LIE!!

Why don`t we all :

1. stop looking to Gandhi or Jinnah for inspiration.

2. stop trying to defend Gandhi / Jinnah.

3. learn a few lessons from our young....

4. look to the future.

Without forward vision, we cannot reach anywhere.
Mantolives and co. can kill Harimau & co. , both countries would probably be better off...

Aagey chalo yaar..... peechhe mutt dekho..

Regards...

reality...female of the canine species..


A probe commission is what is needed: The truth about the Kargil episode- II

By Shamshad Ahmad

OUR people have a right to know the truth, nothing but the truth. Anywhere else in the world, the people would have demanded it as a matter of their constitutional right.

If India can follow the universally acknowledged fact-finding process and take the nation into confidence, why should our people be denied to know their side of the real story?

By now, our people generally understand the situation but would still like the truth to be determined through an independent judicial commission.

As part of its democratic system and institutional governance, India has always kept its armed forces and their operational command and structure under strict governmental writ and fully subservient to the constitution. In keeping with this tradition, the Indian government lost no time after the Kargil conflict in establishing on July 29, 1999, a four-member committee headed by K. Subrahmaniam, a renowned defence studies expert, to determine what went wrong at Kargil.

India’s Kargil review committee was given two specific terms of reference: “i) to review the events leading up to the “Pakistani aggression” in the Kargil District of Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir; and ii) to recommend such measures as are considered necessary to safeguard national security against such armed intrusions.” The committee completed its work in six months and presented its report to the Indian parliament in February 2000 with its findings and a long list of remedial and corrective recommendations.

As a result of an institutional approach in reviewing their failures and shortcomings during that crisis, the Indians have drawn up a list of “lessons learnt” and identified remedial measures to prevent any recurrence of their lapses. In doing so, they had a reality count in front of them. No controversy; no distortion. Who on our side will separate fact from fiction and distinguish reality from myth?

There is a total national consensus in India on the main conclusion drawn by the review committee that the outcome of the Kargil operation was a military as well as diplomatic triumph for India. Unfortunately, there is no such consensus in Pakistan. If it was not a “debacle,” can we also, like India, claim it to be our “military as well as diplomatic” triumph? Regrettably, we cannot.

In India, the need for an independent review of the Kargil episode arose because there, too, questions were raised over intelligence failures and the circumstances that led the country to be caught by surprise at Kargil. In Pakistan, the situation is worse. We don’t agree among ourselves even on the basics of the military operation.

There is no ambiguity or controversy in the Indian version. They acknowledge being caught by surprise when scores of their high-altitude Kargil posts which they had held since after 1972 were clandestinely occupied during their annual winter recess. Once they discovered the ingress, they fought back with all their might, perhaps contrary to the expectations on this side of the Line of Control, and were also able to convince the world of the source of “intrusion” and the prospect of a wider conflict

Unfortunately, we in Pakistan have never taken history seriously and have allowed it to be reduced to an amalgam of fabricated tales and myths. Our younger generations have been growing up on these fabricated facts and myths with our national tragedies and debacles being depicted to them as moments of glory, historic landmarks and “watershed” victories.

What is surprising is the claim in Musharraf’s book that “whatever movement has taken place so far in the direction of finding a solution to Kashmir issue is owed considerably to Kargil conflict.” Which movement? The only movement on Kashmir that we see since October, 1999 is in the reverse direction.

In fact, during the last two years after the resumption of the “composite” dialogue on the basis of the January 6, 2004, Islamabad “joint statement,” we did not see any meaningful direction or genuine sustainability in the “composite” dialogue, which is now inextricably linked to our ability to free India of terrorism — a task we have not been able to accomplish within our own country and we are still struggling with our role in the war on terror.

We have abandoned the high moral ground, a constant of our Kashmir policy, rooted in our commitment to the cardinal principle of self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter. We no longer speak of the UN Security Council resolutions and are instead rambling on half-baked and ad hoc approaches in the name of “pragmatism” and “flexible options.”

Indeed, the biggest casualty of the Kargil War, apart from more than a thousand lives lost on both sides of the LoC, was trust and confidence in Indo-Pak relations and the prospect of a Kashmir settlement. India resumed dialogue with us in 2004 not to resolve the dispute but only to seek an end to “cross-border terrorism.” It will be a miracle if India ever concluded any peace agreement with Pakistan as long as it is under a military government, especially headed by someone whom it sees as the main architect of the Kargil conflict. In his book now, Musharraf has only refreshed India’s “bitter” memories and bared its wounds. The Indians have been given a shrill reminder of what has always been in their subconscious.

According to an Indian analyst, Amulya Ganguli, “the fact that the three major confrontations between the two countries, in 1965, 1971 and 1999, took place when Pakistan was under a military or military controlled regime is not forgotten in India, and apparently, the Indian psyche has not been able to overcome its “contempt and intense dislike” of Pakistani “military-dominated establishment.”

Many in the Indian defence establishment have expressed surprise over the contents of Musharraf’s book. In a statement on September 25, an army spokesman in Delhi noted that the president had all along been maintaining that Kashmiri “freedom fighters” had taken on the Indian army in Kargil. He now admits that five units of the Pakistani army had supported the intruders. The statement also gave figures of casualties on both sides at the end of the conflict to support their contention.

Apart from what the Indian government or its army had to say in response to Musharraf’s “revelations” on Kargil, a more civilized reaction came from India’s respected veteran journalist, Kuldip Nayar, who, writing about Musharraf’s “new image,” could not resist describing the new Musharraf as more “articulate” but “more indiscreet, even at the expense of tailoring facts.” He reminded Musharraf that his version of Kargil was “different from what foreign experts say.”

No doubt, in its essence, the Kargil conflict, as known to the world through its extensive media coverage and published accounts in the form of books and articles, represents yet another chapter of the unresolved Kashmir dispute. Like the earlier Kashmir-related military conflicts, the Kargil operation also ended as a costly debacle both for India and for Pakistan which almost brought the two nuclear-capable states to the brink of another war with the risk of a disastrous strategic miscalculation on either side.

But the overt nuclearisation of India and Pakistan in May, 1998 had already brought the focus of the world attention on Kashmir as reflected in the UN Security Council resolution 1172 of 6 June 1998. While reacting to the nuclear tests conducted first by India and then by Pakistan (which at that time was under a civilian elected government), the Security Council had urged India and Pakistan to resume their dialogue and “encouraged them to find mutually acceptable solutions to address the root causes of their problems, including Kashmir.”

The western acceptance of the Indian claim during Kargil that Pakistan-supported forces had crossed to the Indian side of the LoC gave India an opportunity to persist with its demand that Pakistan should cease “cross-border terrorism,” which we did subsequently concede under the January 6 2004 Islamabad Agreement. In that sense, the current composite dialogue is now linked by India with our fulfilment of the undertaking not to allow our territory for any infiltration across the border.

India’s National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, in a TV interview the other day publicly claimed that President Musharraf had pledged to cooperate with New Delhi along the lines of the help he provided to the British government to foil what has come to be known as the London hijack plan. According to him, India’s understanding was that the joint anti-terror mechanism agreed in Havana would lead to the kind of cooperation that Islamabad had shown with London earlier this year.

He said the Indian government intended to make use of the joint terror mechanism in the wake of the Mumbai blasts to test Pakistan’s commitment, not just to the dialogue process, but also on restricting cross-border terror. This is where we stand now with our “composite” dialogue process. It seems the next foreign secretary-level talks will focus entirely on accusations and denials on Pakistan’s supposed role in the Mumbai blasts.

No doubt, terrorism is one of the eight items on the agenda of the “composite” dialogue and both India and Pakistan should cooperate in meeting this common threat, but linking this issue alone to the future of the dialogue is not the right thing. This process should not be subjected to conditionalities and disrupted again and again. Instead, a serious effort needs to be made to address the root causes of violence and conflict in this region.
(Concluded)

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

#296 by harimau on October 16, 2006 6:50pm PT


Oh boy...now you`ve really done it...first the global recognition for g-man...then the oscar winning movie..now this...manto is going to be seriously unhinged...hope he doesn`t take it out on his family or sumthin....

Ref Mantolives #297

[I have already rubbished the lies about direct action day. The Bengal Congress - again planned by the Congress high command elsewhere- was behind Calcutta Killings, where according to all reports appreciably more Muslims than Hindus were killed.

Here is a complete discussion on Calcutta killings and who exactly was responsible and it is quite clear who was responsible. http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007141&channel=university%20ave#interact ]

Yasser, dear boy, all you have said is that since more Muslims died, Hindus must have planned it.

The Muslim Prime Minister of Bengal Province declared Direct Action Day a holiday.... yes, a day when Muslims can go on a killing spree. All contemporary reports show that more Hindus were killed on the first day of Direct Action Day whereas the Hindus started regrouping and commenced their reprisals after that. If more Muslims got killed, that only shows poor planning by Muslims or firm faith in the belief that one Muslim is equal to ten Hindus.

I am sure Jinnah spent that day contemplating his nether regions since he didn`t do squat about stopping the killings. A few Muslims ded merely added fuel to his demand for Pakistan. Too bad that Bengalis paid in blood for Punjabis; again, the stupidity of Muslims!

Here is your earlier statement:

[... as for the Gujurat comparison ... it is a valid one... In Gujurat Hindus used perceived outrage, to go on a rampage against Muslims killing murdering plundering them and their families... In Calcutta, Hindus used the pretext of a civil disobedience campaign to unleash hell on Muslims.... In both cases appreciably more Muslims died than Hindus... And like Modi, Patel gloated in Calcutta on this great Hindu victory... and Gandhi made a few noises like Advani.]

According to you, Hindus used PERCEIVED outrage to go on a rampage against Muslims. Yes, Hindus are NOT supposed to feel outrage when their own folks are burnt to deth but a Muslim like you should feel outrage when Muslims get killed in far-off Chechnya, Dagestan, Kashmir, Gujarat, Bosnia, etc. How about feeling some outrage for the Muslims of Sinkiang?

Anyway, are your children boys are girls? If girls, you need to start sharpening knives for the possibility that they may marry outside The True Faith.

Dear avkrishna,

Any excuse will do I suppose for you.

Dear Harimau,

I have already rubbished the lies about direct action day. The Bengal Congress - again planned by the Congress high command elsewhere- was behind Calcutta Killings, where according to all reports appreciably more Muslims than Hindus were killed.

Here is a complete discussion on Calcutta killings and who exactly was responsible and it is quite clear who was responsible. http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007141&channel=university%20ave#interact

Also there was no ``Muslims have a loaded pistol`` speech my friend, but for a dishonest crook like you anything goes... even a metaphor about a forged pistol just like Congress` gun (aka civil disobedience). So you really can`t pin violence in Calcutta on Muslim League let alone Jinnah who in any event no real historian blames. Please feel free to interact on the link above.

I am more interested however about Gandhi... I think people who didn`t give Adolf Hitler and ``Mahatma`` Gandhi were eminently reasonable. They knew what Gandhi really was made of... this poor bugger you are quoting now has the misfortune of being exposed to 60 years of one-sided Indian propaganda...

There is hope however. Many academics, historians and activists are beginning to recognise Gandhi for what he truly was... a racist, casteist, misogynist bigot...


From the US Congressional record:

RACISM OF INDIAN FOUNDER EXPOSED
(Extensions of Remarks - December 13, 2005)

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005


Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, the unveiling of a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi in Johannesburg, South Africa, set off a discussion about the anti-black racism of the founder of India.

When the eight-foot high Gandhi statue was unveiled, portraying him as a young human-rights lawyer, many leaders attacked Gandhi`s anti-black statements. “Gandhi had no love for Africans,`` said one letter in The Citizen, a South African newspaper. “To him, Africans were no better than the `Untouchables` of India.``

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the dark-skinned aborigines of the subcontinent, known as Dalits or “Untouchables,`` occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of India`s rigid and racist caste system. The caste system exists to protect the privileged position of the Brahmins, the top caste. Although it was officially banned by India`s constitution in 1950, it is still strictly practiced in Hindu India.

Others have pointed out that Gandhi ignored the suffering of black people during the colonial occupation of South Africa. When he was arrested and forced to share a cell with black prisoners, he wrote that they were “only one degree removed from the animal.`` In other words, Mr. Speaker, he described blacks as less than human. We condemn anyone who says this in our country, such as the Ku Klux Klan and others, as we should. Why is Gandhi venerated for such statements?

In addition, G.B. Singh, a Gandhi biographer, has looked through many pictures of him and never seen one single black person. Gandhi also attacked white Europeans.

Gandhi is honored as the founder of India. These statements and attitudes reveal the racist underpinning behind the secular, democratic facade of India. It explains a worldview that permits a Dalit constable to be stoned to death for entering the temple on a rainy day, that allows the murders of over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan, over 90,000 Muslims in Kashmir, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims elsewhere in the country, including Graham Staines and his two young sons, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minorities. It explains why the pro-Fascist, Hindu militant RSS is a powerful organization in India, in control of one of its two major political parties.

India must abandon its racist attitudes and its exploitation of minorities. It must allow the enjoyment of full human rights by everyone. Until it does so, we should stop our aid and trade with India. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination. India must allow self-determination for Kashmir, as it promised the United Nations in 1948, in Punjab, Khalistan, in Nagaland, and wherever the people seek to free themselves from the boot of Indian oppression. We should put this Congress on record in support of self-determination for the people of the subcontinent in the form of a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence. Khalistan declared its independence on October 7, 1987. The people have never been allowed to have a simple, democratic vote on the matter. Instead, India continues to oppress the people there with over half a million troops.

Now this should truly give you something to chew on... but if you decide to make a comeback my friend, be sure that I will be quoting Gandhi`s pearls of wisdom about how black people were an inferior race and how - like ``Brother Hitler`` Gandhi believed in the superiority of Indo-Aryan and Indo-Germanic stock.

-YLH

Yasser, dear boy, here is something for you to chew on for the next couple of days.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/17/stories/2006101704971200.htm

[`Gandhi not getting the Nobel was the biggest omission`

Amit Baruah

OSLO: It`s not often that you get candid admissions. Or that big institutions have got it wrong. A group of Indian journalists heard both at the headquarters of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which awards the annual Nobel Peace Prize.

``Our record is far from perfect and not giving Mahatma Gandhi the Nobel Peace Prize was the biggest omission,`` Geir Lundestad, permanent secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said on Monday.

Speaking in the Nobel Committee room, where the Peace Prize for 2006 for Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh was decided by the six-member panel in September, Mr. Lundestad referred to Mahatma Gandhi not receiving the Nobel time and again.

And the omission takes on real meaning when you look around and see the black and white photographs of all Peace Prize winners since 1904 adorning the walls. But there`s no picture of the ``half-naked fakir`` as Winston Churchill described the man who led India to freedom.

Mahatma Gandhi was to receive the Prize in 1948, but his assassination prevented the award from coming to him, Mr. Lundestad maintained. ``But that`s no excuse for not giving Gandhi the Prize,`` he explained.

According to him, Mahatma Gandhi was considered not just in 1948, but in 1947, in 1946 and twice previously. ``Serious consideration was given to him on all those occasions,`` he maintained.

When pressed further, Mr. Lundetsad said that war breaking out between the newly created states of India and Pakistan could have been a complicating factor for Mahatma Gandhi not being presented with the Prize in 1948.

He also conceded that the Nobel Committee was ``Western-oriented`` till 1960. According to Mr. Lundestad, the Committee felt so terrible it had not conferred the prize on Mahatma Gandhi that it kept looking at ``other Indians`` over the years.

Asked who the other Indians were, Mr. Lundestad revealed that Jawaharlal Nehru and Acharya Vinoba Bhave were those considered.

According to him, the Committee was governed by ``common sense`` and ``good political judgement`` when deciding on a possible Peace Prize winner. ``There are many roads to peace and that`s why there are different types of laureates,`` he stated, referring to the 2006 prize going to Mr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank.

Asked about the Prize being given to Shirin Ebadi of Iran in 2003, he said her award showed that there were those in the ``Muslim world`` who worked for human rights and democracy.]

I don`t think Mohammad Ali Jinnah was ever considered for any prize.

Oops, he did get the booby prize otherwise known as Pakistan.

Yasser, dear boy, back in March 28, 2001 I gave you the following advice:

[I wish you could stop this self-torture that all this talk about a secular democratic Pakistan entails. Get married, get a job and have a few children; then you can start worrying about your daughter dating an Unbeliever as opposed to the problems of Pakistan.

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001014&channel=gulberg&threshold=-1&layout=0&order=0&start=180&end=189&page=1#685]

I think if you have more children, you will worry more about their future and less about Jinnah and Gandhi.

Time for you to go make some more babies!

Ref Mantolives #277

[Sure... Jinnah was not a drama like that violent racist, casteist, fanatic bigot Gandhi and s we can`t expect dramatics... but Jinnah`s personal intervention to save Hindus in Karachi and Sindh is well documented ... ofcourse he was doing it with a sense of duty as the Governor General of Pakistan.

Also to compare Patel, who gloated at every incident of violence, to Jinnah, who otherwise an unemotional man, was not only visibly affected according to everyone who met him, but also made concrete efforts to put down violence, which are appreciated by all historians... if not hogwash peddaling Gandhian hagiographers... is especially ironic.]

Yasser, dear boy, you would soon be telling us that Direct Action Day was meant to be a day of introspection when Muslims would be staring at their navels and contemplating how to reach jannat/Pakistan through constitutional means and that Jinnah himself spent three days staring at his nether regions and to this day you follow this practice in homage to Jinnah.

You would also be telling us that Jinnah`s statement about ``Muslims having a loaded pistol in their hands`` was a direct portent of things to come later rather than sooner... to the fact that Pakistanis have shot themselves in the balls with that loaded pistol.

You SHOULD be writing the history of Pakistan. Then and then only Jogindra Nath Mondal would be recognized for his true contribution to Pakistan`s constitutional development. I do hope you reproduce his resignation letter in full... you know, those portions about Hindus being killed in Paskistan and being denied their rights, etc.

And here is the ``I have a Dream `` speech of Jinnah for inclusion in your history: ``I have a dream that one day in Pakistan when Muslims will remain Muslims and Hindus will cease to be Hindus, I have a dream. I have a dream that Muslims will be declaring Ahmadis to be non-Muslims and accord them the same rights that they accord Hindus and Christians, I have a dream. I have a dream that Sunnis and Shias will be living in peace except that the vile Shias cannot be trusted and so will have to be shot during Friday prayers at their filthy places of worship which they persist in calling a masjid, I have a dream. I have a dream when all of Pakistan will be uniformly Wahhabi Muslims and we will be groveling at the feet of the Emir of Saudi Arabia, I have a dream.`` I guess you get the picture.

As to Justice Bhagwandas or Justice Cornelius, what can I say except that they both have Yousuf Yohanna`s example in front of them. Yes, I do know that Pakistan does not have a law that the members of its cricket team must be Muslims but did Yousuf Yohanna know that?

In Pakistan, minorities have the freedom of religion to convert to Islam. What more can they ask for?